Interesting article and discussion about Python's standard library

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Sunday, 19 May 2019 at 04:10:22 UTC, ikod wrote:
> Actually I see no problem here. I'm using python as everyday 
> tool, and yes, there is lot of packages in Pypi repo that are 
> more user-friendly or more complete than standard library 
> modules, but not every pypi module works on every platform 
> where python library works and not always compatible with every 
> python version (and this sometimes is real PITA).

Yup, seems like people somehow forgets what a scripting language 
traditionally has been used for as they now also increasingly are 
used for applications.

The libs that have been outdated the most is the HTTP/Web ones, 
and that is absolutely crucial as a builtin for a useful 
scripting language.

Anyway, with the standard lib I can just install the default 
Python build and set up a script to set up daily transfer of 
stuff from some old windows server to the cloud. All I need is 
MSIE+notepad. Cost saving efficiency, even despite having to do 
some workarounds. Get it done same day on a an outdated 
nothing-installed server with no hickups.

Solving boring tasks like these on time is what has made Perl, 
Python, bash/unix popular.

Actually, I've found it bothersome and time consuming that the 
std lib lacked key crypto algorithms. I've also had to improvise 
my own encoding for HTTP POST on site. So, no, the Python 2 
library was not too big at all, it was quite deficient in terms 
of features.

Anyway, Python is a scripting language often used for hashing out 
solutions on-site at a break-neck pace (near real time). Python 
should ship configured as a swiss armyknife and then some.

As long as weaknesses are documented in the Python docs, then it 
is ok that some of it is imperfect. I'd rather have a leaky 
firehose when the house is burning than none at all!

D and Go are not scripting languages! Scripting languages need 
builtins that enable fast deployment and quick fixes.